kolarshooter
Posts: 658
Joined: 5/7/2004
From: Paso Robles,
CA, USA
Status: offline
|
It flew...and it flew well.
I like how it flys. It feels light and is certainly "adequately powered" by the Saito .91  .
In my installation, the engine is about five-six inches from the fual tank, and the carb is definitely above the centerline of the tank. There was no fuel draw issue at all...these Saitos have great draw without using pumps or other gimmicks. My mentor told me that a couple of years ago when I installed a S-150 in a F-90. He was right (as usual.) I've found the S-180 draw to be as good. Except for gas engines, these are my favorite engines for power, weight, and fuel efficiency. They are worth the extra cost in performance alone.
At 5", the CG was still too far forward. My basis for judging this is by flying an inverted 45: if the plane climbs at all, the CG is too far aft. If it continues drawing a 45 degree line, or SLOWLY arcs downward, (this is a question of preference) it is on-or very close-to the mark. If the plane wants to descend, you know you are too far forward on the CG.
I added 1/4 ounce to the rearmost spot on the fuselage after the first flight. This helped. I added another 0.4 ounce after the second flight. This helped (no surprise, huh?)
The third flight was getting closer. I added another .4 ounce when I got home. Hopefully this will "gittr done" when I fly her again Saturday.
This plane flys very light, I mean that I bet you could add at least a pound to this plane before it would start to feel too heavy. We had some blustery wind conditions (nothing extreme, just too much for serious trimming) so I'm looking forward to Saturday morning when I will fly it again.
The recommended throws are great. The snaps on high rates are certainly fast. I set up three flight modes on my JR 9303; one is the recommended low rates with 30% expo all around, the second mode is the recommended high rates with 40% expo all around, and the third mode is "all I can get" with 50% expo all around. The recommended throws are good starting places and I'd recommend following their recommendations (initially, anyway.)
Yes, the covering wants to delamitate and fall off.
Yes, the gear is very flexible. I fly off of asphalt, and had three greaser landings in spite of some breezy conditions. The gear is fine for my purposes.
Yes, the attitude of the plane on its gear is not as nose-up as most (tail dragger) planes I've seen. I didn't notice this at all in take-offs and landings....not a problem.
Yes, I am very happy with my purchase ($150.00 at my LHS) and would recommend this plane to anyone who wants an aerobatic plane and is comfortable with a completely neutral flying bird.
I'll report back after I have trimmed this plane out the way I was taught to trim my big aerobatic planes. There's nothing like flying a plane that really "grooves". If you are unfamiliar with what I mean by "trimming" check out the link above...doing this to your aerobatic planes will change your perspective on flying and on what a "good flying plane" is.
< Message edited by kolarshooter -- 2/29/2008 1:45:18 AM >
_____________________________
JR 9303; DX-7; 34% CA Extra 300L/DA100; H-9 33% Edge 540/DA100; EF Edge Profile/S-72; Reactor/S-91; Foamies
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> 3D Flying! >> RE: Great Planes Reactor GP/EP 3D ARF .46-.70 
RE: Great Planes Reactor GP/EP 3D ARF .46-.70 - 
